Which KJV editions have the italics correct?
2 Kings 25:4
of war fled (1804 Oxford) [1769, 1790, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}
of war fled (1762, present Oxford) [1873 Cambridge]
What authority or standard is to be used in determining whether a KJV edition has the correct word in italics?
Where is the PCE ? While I do not consider changes in italics to be changes in text, I would consider the PCE as the standard.
So Rick, do you think it is right for versions to simply omit omit whole verses and sections that you know are preserved scripture ? Any word from Rick Norris about that ?
By a compelling standard of consistent analysis, one such verse would be 100s of times more consequent than an italics question.
2 Kings 25:4
of war fled (1804 Oxford) [1769, 1790, 1817, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1869, 1887 Cambridge] {1817, 1824 London}
of war fled (1762, present Oxford) [1873 Cambridge]
What authority or standard is to be used in determining whether a KJV edition has the correct word in italics?
Turton explained, “when a translation, from Hebrew or Greek into English, is attempted, it is frequently quite impossible to convey, to the English reader, the full signification of the Original, without employing more words than the Original contains. When therefore our Translators distinguished particular words in the manner already described, they did not intend to indicate any deviation from the purport of the Original any diminution of its force. Their first object undoubtedly was to express in intelligible English what they believed to be the full signification of a sentence”.
“This question has been exhaustively treated by Dr Turton ... who shews conclusively that the Cambridge text of 1638 bears clear marks of representing very exactly the true form of the Authorized Version. In the use of italics it is far more consistent than the editions of 1611, which seem to have been hastily printed.”
"The Italics of 1638 were speedily adopted. They became part of the established Text; which Text, after having been more than once subjected to the scrutiny of persons well qualified for the undertaking, was revised, for the last time, in the year 1769.”
This is the historical view. Directly out of this, the PCE is the standard for the italics.
For the majority of the KJVOs, even the italics of the KJV seem to be taken as the true scripture, even though they are interpolations, and might conceivably actually be incorrect in at least some cases.
In the above case, fled is almost certainly the correct added word, and is accordigly italicized, though departed would work almost as well.
For an edition of the KJV to italicize the word "war" in this verse, which in effect actually appears in the text (as a translation of the Hebrew for "men of war" or "mortals of war"), would simply seem to be a typesetter's error.
"The Italics of 1638 were speedily adopted. They became part of the established Text; which Text, after having been more than once subjected to the scrutiny of persons well qualified for the undertaking, was revised, for the last time, in the year 1769.”
This is the historical view. Directly out of this, the PCE is the standard for the italics.
Have you checked every word so that you know for certain that the italics in the 1900's Cambridge edition you call the PCE has no changes from the italics in the 1769 Oxford edition?
Can you demonstrate from the standard of the original langauge texts that the italics in the 1900's Cambridge edition are all correct?
Which edition has the correct italics? Does the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible imply that there is no word for "hear" in the Hebrew text? A 1900's edition of the KJV printed at Cambridge [Pitt Minion edition] has the same italics as that in the Scofield Reference Bible.
Psalm 17:6 and hear (1758, 1762, 1770, 1777 Oxford) [1873 Cambridge] and hear (present Oxford)
Have you checked every word so that you know for certain that the italics in the 1900's Cambridge edition you call the PCE has no changes from the italics in the 1769 Oxford edition?
The 1769 Edition is not the final standard on italics. There are a few minor italic differences between various editions which descend from the 1769 family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
Can you demonstrate from the standard of the original language texts that the italics in the 1900's Cambridge edition are all correct?
Italics are used for two main reasons, one is to supply the intended sense of the originals, the other is to indicate renderings which seem to have less attestation.
Moreover, since there is no extant copy of the originals which is flawless (one has never been pointed to by Rick Norris and friends every time I have mentioned this), it becomes rather foolish then to ask concerning the original languages, when clearly the standard form is a translation.
The PCE shows the exact presentation of the italic type. But since italics do not alter the text or sense of Scripture, to attempt to measure by human “rules of consistency” etc. is a waste of time. (Especially if endless lists of minor variations in various editions are to be listed, or be used to attempt to discredit the KJB.)
We draw upon the view that J. Collingwood of Oxford indicated, “With regard to the text, the Delegates after considering the great incorrectness of the early editions, are of opinion that the text of Dr Blayney was formed with much care and judgment; that it furnishes on the whole, a very good basis for editions of the Bible, and that the confidence now generally reposed in it, ought not be disturbed on slight grounds.”
Which edition has the correct italics? Does the present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible imply that there is no word for "hear" in the Hebrew text? A 1900's edition of the KJV printed at Cambridge [Pitt Minion edition] has the same italics as that in the Scofield Reference Bible.
Psalm 17:6 and hear (1758, 1762, 1770, 1777 Oxford) [1873 Cambridge] and hear (present Oxford)
The words "and hear" are in italics in the PCE, as is also shown in various editions from various sources from the 1800s onward.
of war fled (1762, present Oxford) [1873 Cambridge]
Here is a classic example of wrong emphasis. All three witnesses that Norris produces with a particular rendering of italics can be discounted from any meaningful analysis because all three of the sources that Norris produces cannot count as truly representative of the 1769 Family.
1. Proper Bibles (traditionally near-universally recognised since the 1830s) follow the 1769, therefore the 1762 cannot be taken as a direct factor of the presentation as though it is authoritative today.
2. The so-called "present Oxford" of Rick Norris may not actually the normal Oxford text, i.e. that of the mid-twentieth century, as is followed in various locations around the internet. What Norris calls the "present Oxford" may have changes in it to the normal Oxford. Using Norris' terminology would be like saying that Norton's Cambridge is "the present Cambridge" because it is currently in print, even though it does not present either the Standard Text Edition or the Concord edition, both of which are currently in print from Cambridge. (Thus, unless this terminology is made plain, we must question it.)
3. The 1873 Cambridge is Scrivener's, of no particular value in this discussion as it is not a normal Bible.
Now it happens that most editions which might be counted as accurate representatives of the 1769 Family (e.g. Oxford editions from after 1817, Cambridge editions from after circa 1830, Victorian London editions, etc.) indicate that "fled" is in italics.
Italics are used for two main reasons, one is to supply the intended sense of the originals, the other is to indicate renderings which seem to have less attestation.
Moreover, since there is no extant copy of the originals which is flawless (one has never been pointed to by Rick Norris and friends every time I have mentioned this), it becomes rather foolish then to ask concerning the original languages, when clearly the standard form is a translation.
Italics do affect the claimed text of a translation since the italics were supposed to indicate the words supplied by the translators that were not in the text. If words are not in italics, it suggests that there was a word in the original language text for those words. The original language texts have to be the standard for evaluating italics and for determining where printers correctly used the italic type; otherwise, the likely mistakes of printers are made a standard above the original language texts.
The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are more flawless than the interpretations/translating decisions of Church of England scholars in 1611. If the existing Scriptures in the original languages were good enough to be translated from in the 1500's and 1600's, why do KJV-only posters imply that they are not good enough to try those translations made from them? The early English translators and the KJV translators clearly indicated that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages were good enough to be used to try all translations.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Which has the word(s) in italics correct?
correct italics
Linear Mode
